Re: weird ON CONFLICT clauses
| От | Peter Geoghegan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: weird ON CONFLICT clauses |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAH2-Wzn38BS7b0yqMy9AxZHjbcH4bBaFtwVRTpLaHW93oHiGLA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | weird ON CONFLICT clauses (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 11:00 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > Why do we accept reloptions there without complaint? Should we tighten > this up a little bit, or maybe it makes sense to accept this for some > reason? I suspect the reloptions were added to index_elems after the ON > CONFLICT clause was made to use that production, but I didn't check the > git history. index_elems is needed by ON CONFLICT so that the user can specify an operator class and/or a collation. This is probably hardly ever used, but it does have its place. > So what about the attached patch? I ran all tests and everything seems > to work correctly. (Maybe I'd add some tests to verify that this > new error is covered, as the ones just above.) It would complain to the > above: Seems reasonable to me. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: